Re: Nuclear Power Madness
One of the Physicists who helped clean up Chernobyl critical of IAEA...
https://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110315...ms_japan_iae_1
(Many yrs. ago I met one of the Physicists (Ukrainian) who helped to clean up Chernobyl...
Very cool guy...Was very impressed by him...Very good person)...
Where are the other postings on here....They don't come up....?...
-------------
Human arrogance, always gets us in trouble...
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
..."Does anyone else find it disturbing that in response to the Fukushima meltdowns the people of Ankara and Paris are are out in the streets protesting nuclear power and we in So.Co. are buying kelp?"...
I guess we are the 'Kelp People'....
------------
...""Middle America" is a lot more likely to listen to that than logic. California is uniquely situated to start the new Green Energy Revolution. Yes, a gas tax is necessary even if it's CA only. Use the money to pay for services and to purchase solar power systems that will be OWNED by We the People. The government(s) need a source of income other than taxes. Let us buy electricity from our government(s). I agree we should level the playing field on cost. Solar must hold its own. So let's go ahead and give the solar industry $190 billion in support as we have the nuclear industry. It's time for the nuke industry to get off the public tit."...
I don't want to see a gas tax at the pump, unless it's a slight one, because it would do a lot of people in that rely on driving for their jobs...wages are not going up and people are already hurting with the prices...
I've heard there is no tax on Corporations that are doing oil drilling in our state, and that most states do tax them to drill...If this is true we could at least have a tax that would help our deficit...
If the 'Non-Nuke' people are going to want to do away with nuclear energy sources then it sure seems to me you need to argue it from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint, not a political 'eco-wacco' one...
The pro-Nuke people say it's the 'eco-wackos' who through fear, and legislations limited progress in safer development for Nuclear power plants, have hindered our scientific progress in this, and made us more dependent on Coal which is horrible for the environment (true or not, I don't research this stuff)...and that Solar, and wind etc. cannot, and are not going to provide for our energy needs...
If 'anti-nuke' people want alternatives - then they need to show people it will provide for people's needs, and be cost-effective...
They also need to show that they are not just reacting out of fear against Nuclear JUST because of what has happened in Japan...
The reality is we are going to be dependent on nuke energy for awhile, so the ability to transition, and fulfill needs, needs to be shown scientifically, economically...
The debate has been going on for a long time in the 'environmental community' about 'nuke' energy or not...Some for and some against...
-----------
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Norman Solomon:
Like every other president since the 1940s, Barack Obama has promoted nuclear power. Now, with reactors melting down in Japan, the official stance is more disconnected from reality than ever.
Political elites are still clinging to the oxymoron of “safe nuclear power.” It’s up to us -- people around the world -- to peacefully and insistently shut those plants down.
There is no more techno-advanced country in the world than Japan. Nuclear power is not safe there, and it is not safe anywhere.
All radioactive elements are natural. They are all already here, all around (or under) us, in the environment. We remove them from the environment at large (where you are exposed without ever being aware of it), refine and concentrate them, and lock them into heavy shielding for local use. Where are they more dangerous?
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
>>>All radioactive elements are natural. They are all already here, all around (or under) us, in the environment. We remove them from the environment at large (where you are exposed without ever being aware of it), refine and concentrate them, and lock them into heavy shielding for local use. Where are they more dangerous?
Offhand, I would imagine that they're more dangerous in the air or water supply where they can not only emit radiation in heavier ("refined") concentrations but also, worse, be ingested. That they're more dangerous "locked in heavy shielding for local use" when the heavy shielding gives way either to human error (if that's ever imaginable) or to natural forces, since God doesn't always read the warning labels on our devices. And that they're more dangerous collected by the hundreds of tons either to be transported cross-country to storage facilities that are guaranteed safe (by government officials) for half a million years or stored on-site until modern science discovers a miracle way to make them vanish. That will happen, of course, before terrorists bribe some drunk security guard who's behind on his alimony payments, abscond with a couple pounds, and blow up a car full of radioactive gunk in mid-town Manhattan or Union Square, giving us a new and more radiant Ground Zero.
People would argue, of course, that if you give a five-year-old proper training, then it's fine for him to play with Daddy's loaded pistol — if he shoots Daddy, it's just human error and he'll learn from that. And people would argue that the experts in charge of design and safety are (of course!) EXPERTS, and the corporations in charge would never be motivated to cut corners on safety concerns, as Massey Energy did with their mines, BP with its rigs, or PG&E with their pipeline, or the major financial institutions with the American Economy. Those were anomalies, human error, and we'll LEARN FROM THAT, yes?
I have no doubts about the safety of nuclear energy if we could get some altruistic race of space aliens to run it for us. Humans? I'll have to think twice about that.
Cheers,
Conrad
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
..."Does anyone else find it disturbing that in response to the Fukushima meltdowns the people of Ankara and Paris are are out in the streets protesting nuclear power and we in So.Co. are buying kelp?"...
I guess we are the 'Kelp People'....
------------
...""Middle America" is a lot more likely to listen to that than logic. California is uniquely situated to start the new Green Energy Revolution. Yes, a gas tax is necessary even if it's CA only. Use the money to pay for services and to purchase solar power systems that will be OWNED by We the People. The government(s) need a source of income other than taxes. Let us buy electricity from our government(s). I agree we should level the playing field on cost. Solar must hold its own. So let's go ahead and give the solar industry $190 billion in support as we have the nuclear industry. It's time for the nuke industry to get off the public tit."...
I don't want to see a gas tax at the pump, unless it's a slight one, because it would do a lot of people in that rely on driving for their jobs...wages are not going up and people are already hurting with the prices...
I've heard there is no tax on Corporations that are doing oil drilling in our state, and that most states do tax them to drill...If this is true we could at least have a tax that would help our deficit...
If the 'Non-Nuke' people are going to want to do away with nuclear energy sources then it sure seems to me you need to argue it from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint, not a political 'eco-wacco' one...
The pro-Nuke people say it's the 'eco-wackos' who through fear, and legislations limited progress in safer development for Nuclear power plants, have hindered our scientific progress in this, and made us more dependent on Coal which is horrible for the environment (true or not, I don't research this stuff)...and that Solar, and wind etc. cannot, and are not going to provide for our energy needs...
If 'anti-nuke' people want alternatives - then they need to show people it will provide for people's needs, and be cost-effective...
They also need to show that they are not just reacting out of fear against Nuclear JUST because of what has happened in Japan...
The reality is we are going to be dependent on nuke energy for awhile, so the ability to transition, and fulfill needs, needs to be shown scientifically, economically...
The debate has been going on for a long time in the 'environmental community' about 'nuke' energy or not...Some for and some against...
-----------
Maybe we are not going to be dependent on Nuclear energy in the long haul. There is
a scientist at Berkeley labs (special on PBS) that is near making "switch grass" a viable
mass produced clean oil product. His father is a midwest farmer and said he and other farmers would love to be paid to grow it. It takes very little water or tending, and no pesticids and will grow in a variety of climates. We have vast areas of emty land for it. Compare us to England! Green Algae is getting near a big breakthough, they are laying out hugh ponds out in the Imperial VAlley to grow it (it obsorbs alot of carbon monoxide) Many jobs are being created in the mid west with wind energy, we need to do that more in California as well. Instead of giving billions of dollars to nuclear let's give it to clean energy. What are we going to do with all the nuclear waste? There are barrels of it already buried in the
ground and ocean. It will not be safe for thousands of years and the barrels will only last a hundred or so. We need to solve that problem first! For our grand children.
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:
>>>All radioactive elements are natural. They are all already here, all around (or under) us, in the environment. We remove them from the environment at large (where you are exposed without ever being aware of it), refine and concentrate them, and lock them into heavy shielding for local use. Where are they more dangerous?
Offhand, I would imagine that they're more dangerous in the air or water supply where they can not only emit radiation in heavier ("refined") concentrations but also, worse, be ingested. That they're more dangerous "locked in heavy shielding for local use" when the heavy shielding gives way either to human error (if that's ever imaginable) or to natural forces, since God doesn't always read the warning labels on our devices. And that they're more dangerous collected by the hundreds of tons either to be transported cross-country to storage facilities that are guaranteed safe (by government officials) for half a million years or stored on-site until modern science discovers a miracle way to make them vanish. That will happen, of course, before terrorists bribe some drunk security guard who's behind on his alimony payments, abscond with a couple pounds, and blow up a car full of radioactive gunk in mid-town Manhattan or Union Square, giving us a new and more radiant Ground Zero.
People would argue, of course, that if you give a five-year-old proper training, then it's fine for him to play with Daddy's loaded pistol — if he shoots Daddy, it's just human error and he'll learn from that. And people would argue that the experts in charge of design and safety are (of course!) EXPERTS, and the corporations in charge would never be motivated to cut corners on safety concerns, as Massey Energy did with their mines, BP with its rigs, or PG&E with their pipeline, or the major financial institutions with the American Economy. Those were anomalies, human error, and we'll LEARN FROM THAT, yes?
I have no doubts about the safety of nuclear energy if we could get some altruistic race of space aliens to run it for us. Humans? I'll have to think twice about that.
Cheers,
Conrad
I totally agree that humans should not be trusted with such a deadly force. And with
this "free" economic and political system. Where companies are making the laws (or no laws) to regulate themselves we are at their greedy mercy. I have heard a CEO of the nuclear industry say "Well I won't be around anyway, when they explode" Does he live in Manhattan? Near the Indian Point Plant? He just might be around. But what about his grand children?
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CarolineL:
Maybe we are not going to be dependent on Nuclear energy in the long haul. There is
a scientist at Berkeley labs (special on PBS) that is near making "switch grass" a viable
mass produced clean oil product. His father is a midwest farmer and said he and other farmers would love to be paid to grow it. It takes very little water or tending, and no pesticids and will grow in a variety of climates. We have vast areas of emty land for it. Compare us to England! Green Algae is getting near a big breakthough, they are laying out hugh ponds out in the Imperial VAlley to grow it (it obsorbs alot of carbon monoxide) Many jobs are being created in the mid west with wind energy, we need to do that more in California as well. Instead of giving billions of dollars to nuclear let's give it to clean energy. What are we going to do with all the nuclear waste? There are barrels of it already buried in the
ground and ocean. It will not be safe for thousands of years and the barrels will only last a hundred or so. We need to solve that problem first! For our grand children.
------------------------
I have heard about the algae...I sure hope we find something that would be very good and lightweight on the environment...
Don't know about using up a bunch of land for switchgrass...Good land should be used for food growing...
Between population growth, erosion and such, we'll see...
Too bad we can't fuel everything with hemp...That's such a useful plant...
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
A tour through the Chernobyl area:
A girl on a motorbike take a trip and records it with pictures; there are lots of pages from this starting link:
https://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernoby...es/author.html
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CarolineL:
I totally agree that humans should not be trusted with such a deadly force. And with
this "free" economic and political system. Where companies are making the laws (or no laws) to regulate themselves we are at their greedy mercy. I have heard a CEO of the nuclear industry say "Well I won't be around anyway, when they explode" Does he live in Manhattan? Near the Indian Point Plant? He just might be around. But what about his grand children?
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
... If the 'Non-Nuke' people are going to want to do away with nuclear energy sources then it sure seems to me you need to argue it from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint, not a political 'eco-wacco' one...
True, but;
1- I think that it should also be required that the pro-nuclear entities to scientifically prove that nuclear energy is both economically viable and is actually “safe” in the true sense; not some mumbo-jumbo (such as a hyper-optimistic gesture such as: “oh well some day our future generations will figure out a way to neutralize the highly radioactive waste), intentionally confusing and obfuscating ways as they have been so far.
2- Insurance companies won't touch insuring any nuclear power plant (figuratively speaking) with a 10 foot pole; including the so-called new “safe” ones.... Note: the “Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%..._Indemnity_Act
... which basically states:
“The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government.”
In other words the so-called_ “too big to fail” scenario that happened when the government “bailed” the “banks” (etc) out is a good insight of how the taxpayers would likely be treated if and/or when a large accident beyond $12.6 billion would occur.
Also note the fiasco with the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill in Alaska , and all those fishermen that went out of business and were financially, emotionally, and psychologically destroyed...
... Look at what happened with the big oil well gusher, explosion, disaster that happened in the Gulf of Mexico
(Deepwater Horizon oil spill)...
... another example how people in the disaster zone would get disenfranchised without adequate compensation...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
The pro-Nuke people say it's the 'eco-wackos' who through fear, and legislations limited progress in safer development for Nuclear power plants, have hindered our scientific progress in this, and made us more dependent on Coal which is horrible for the environment (true or not, I don't research this stuff)...and that Solar, and wind etc. cannot, and are not going to provide for our energy needs...
Simply put:
1- They (the “spokespersons” for pro-nuclear power entities) are either intentionally misinformed by the ones that do know or are knowingly lying and obfuscating anything and everything they possibly can that would have any kind of likelihood whatsoever to change people's perceptions about them in any direction other than a positive way towards them.
2- “They” (the pro-nuke, oil, and gas entities that are well-connected with the government by way of campaign funding and lobbying) have also done everything under the sun to get all of the government, “corporate welfare”, tax breaks, land and offshore leases at basement and or “free” prices etc. etc. for their projects, while in doing so made the playing field of developing energy as a whole extremely tilted to where it is ({as} intended to be by them) impossible for anybody else to compete with them regardless of how much more efficient and effective any alternative would be... ... In other words, it's corruption with government officials fingerprints all over it.
3- RE:
Quote:
...(true or not, I don't research this stuff)
|
That's what “they” are counting on with their big investment in the media. “They” are counting on most people not knowing enough and expecting the “press” through the “media” to do it for them somehow, as if they know, care, or are otherwise instructed to do so by their corporate “owners”...(yeah right {sarcastic}).
That's why more people should at least do some basic “research” independently without always “depending” on “the media” to do it for us! The media, politicians, etc. etc. are either bought and paid for or are hoodwinked in large part because of the lack of independent, individual people doing their own “research” and being able to actually show that research in that same media with anywhere near equal time in prime time etc. etc..
I really don't want to get poisoned because of other people's lack of “research”. But unfortunately that's what happens to innocent people every day. They get poisoned by environmental degradation because their neighbors don't do enough research to stop something that they would never allow to start in their neighborhood if they really knew the facts;... ...then the disaster strikes; and then it's too late.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
If 'anti-nuke' people want alternatives - then they need to show people it will provide for people's needs, and be cost-effective...
I think as far as nuclear energy is concerned; it should not have to be up to the “anti-nuke people” to show people that their “needs” could be met by alternatives as it should be mandated with no exceptions that the pro-nuclear “people”/industry to “prove” that nuclear energy production is actually “safe”, past present and future. We must not forget about the waste products which there is no known way to neutralize which there is no proven way to store it for thousands of years that is actually, truly “safe”.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
...They also need to show that they are not just reacting out of fear against Nuclear JUST because of what has happened in Japan...
The reality is we are going to be dependent on nuke energy for awhile, so the ability to transition, and fulfill needs, needs to be shown scientifically, economically...
For one thing, nuclear energy is not economical in the first place when taking in consideration everything; not just the first few years of Government subsidized (by way of government bailout of expenses incurred from accidents, exceeding $12 billion as mentioned above, tax exemptions, land and resource grants/allowances, and other tax payer funded favoritisms); successfully constructed and initially operated power plant/s.
Any and all considerations for continuing and building, or even so much as completing any already under construction, absolutely must also be included in their tabulations of the storage and safety of all aspects of dealing with the radioactive products; some of which are extremely dangerous and radioactive for thousands of years... ...(simply put, it can't be done).
Then there is the national security aspect of those nuclear materials that are would be targets for terrorists.
Not to mention the fact that people are not perfect and that people always make mistakes from time to time.
The scientific fact is that people make mistakes frequently...
... The more complex the system the more opportunities there are for human mistakes to occur...
... Using something as complicated as splitting atoms to boil water makes boiling water unnecessarily complicated and accident prone.
Therefore once again, it should be required to be up to the “pro-nuclear people”/industry to scientifically “prove” that nuclear power is (in reality) safe in the present time with what we already have in regards to the radioactive products that already exists and in the here and now term and also with what is being produced and are planned on being used in the future... ...furthermore; in the long-term in regards to what will become of all the radioactive nuclear waste and their byproducts and co-contaminated systems.
If there were as many exemptions for the environmental impact reports as there is now for wind generators and solar generators as there has been for nuclear power plants there would admittedly be some environmental problems like the potential demise of the desert tortoise in the Mojave Desert in California, Arizona and Nevada.
I think for those who claim that "let the market forces decide" and cut, cut, cut (spending) they should consider; instead of “giving” any such “special interest” subsidies, loopholes etc. to the so-called renewables (that) it would, under those conditions, be better to repeal giving the nuclear energy any taxpayer money or special loopholes of any kind whatsoever. Only then would it be closer to being truly “competitive”...Otherwise the politically well-connected pro-nuclear power enthusiasts just throw a bunch of smoke and mirrors and technical mumbo-jumbo at the general public through the corporate owned media that the average person couldn't decipher to save their own (or anybody else's) life.
The bottom line is that without the taxpayers through the government essentially insuring what amounts to be the profitability of nuclear power; it absolutely would not be either profitable or competitive.
We may be somewhat dependent on nuclear power generation today, but to continue that dependence is just as bad of a decision if not absolutely far worse than remaining dependent on foreign oil from people that supposedly hate us was when we could have started making changes beginning in the late 1970s. But instead we ended up supporting dictators so that we can keep our gluttony for oil going. (Militarily speaking, that may have been necessary, I really don't know). But we still could have been making changes domestically in the late 1970s that would have put us far ahead of where we are now as far as “energy independence” is concerned.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
The debate has been going on for a long time in the 'environmental community' about 'nuke' energy or not...Some for and some against...
-----------
To make a long drawn out story shorter:
What I think the ‘environmental community’ has been supposedly debating whether or not to have nuclear energy, all boils down to is essentially some (of them) are extremely concerned and some others are absolutely terrified by the “fact” that human caused global warming caused by the combustion byproducts of fossil fuels, particularly carbon dioxide would cause irreparable harm and possibly, quite literally, boil all of the ocean water into space and therefore all life on the planet as we know it would perish forever.
Because of that, the feeling of desperation caused by the sense of absolute urgency puts the mindset into ‘emergency mode’ therefore nuclear power for them; in their minds eye seems to be at this moment in time the lesser of two evils IE: fossil fuels, versus nuclear “fuel” as the only “viable” (so-called) alternatives.
Personally, I think that thinking that way is delusional simply because people are not going to give up fossil fuel just because there are more nuclear power plants. That is just ridiculous, it's just not going to happen like that. It's a fantasy at best.
The rest of the environmental community that has been against nuclear power from virtually the very beginning see it very differently than that.
Yes, there is concern about global warming and all that but there has also been ample opportunity for changes to be made in the past that could have prevented such an “artificial” and imposed dependency on such massive quantities of both fossil fuels and nuclear power generation. It's kind of like “follow the money”, and it will lead to the root of (the) evil, so to speak.
There are a lot of things we could do now in the same direction that we should have taken in the past to get off of the "tit" of both big oil and nuclear greed.
The masses just need to get interested enough in not getting burnt to a crisp one way (global warming) or the other (man-made nuclear disaster), discover the facts for themselves, and we can all be better off as a result of the changes that people would naturally take with the correct knowledge.
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
..."That's why more people should at least do some basic “research” independently without always “depending” on “the media” to do it for us!
The media, politicians, etc. etc. are either bought and paid for or are hoodwinked in large part because of the lack of independent, individual people doing their own “research” and being able to actually show that research in that same media with anywhere near equal time in prime time etc. etc..''
------------------
I don't expect the media to do 'research' for me...
But, I have heard the basic pro's and con's regarding Nuclear energy....
I don't think the average Joe should be expected to know much about what is going on in the Nuclear energy field...
How many people on these boards, have had a basic class in Nuclear physics?
The reality is we are dependent on what certain 'experts' are doing in whatever fields...
Most people (do I dare 'speak' for most people?) have their hands, and time full just trying to pay the bills these days.
------------------
There are a lot of things we could do now in the same direction that we should have taken in the past to get off of the "tit" of both big oil and nuclear greed.
The masses just need to get interested enough in not getting burnt to a crisp one way (global warming) or the other (man-made nuclear disaster), discover the facts for themselves, and we can all be better off as a result of the changes that people would naturally take with the correct knowledge.
------------------
'Correct knowledge' is going to be an interesting thing to try and get humankind to agree on...Most people think they have 'correct knowledge', that's why they think such and such, and sometimes end up killing each other over it...
I'm not worried about getting 'burnt to a crisp', unless I get stuck in the middle of the desert in the summer with no shade...I'm more 'worried' about a horrible earthquake, famine, or dirty, undrinkable water...
The bottom line is we are dependent on Nuclear energy now, and will be for quite some time...We are not going to switch overnight to alternatives...So, because of that, I think it's important for people to get vocal, and active and put pressure on our Reps. and others, to demand regulations, and enforcement of regulations of the Nuke plants we have now, and in the near future...We are suppose to have them, so we could try and make sure we have the best we can get...
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
... we can all be better off as a result of the changes that people would naturally take with the correct knowledge.
------------------
'Correct knowledge' is going to be an interesting thing to try and get humankind to agree on..
It's not correct knowledge that's the issue - it's shared values. They don't exist.
Sorry, but there are plenty of people who'd trade some health and lifespan, much less the health and lifespan of potential descendants and strangers and their descendants, for comfort/convenience/tax-avoidance/laziness. Probably most people. By the way, it doesn't make those who are very engaged with preservation of their health and safety more enlightened or to use a favorite wacco term 'conscious'. People make conscious choices, fully aware of what they will entail, that many of you find abhorrent. Sucks, doesn't it??
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Lynn, You make several claims/assumptions in your argument that are unfounded.
1. That "we" are dependent on nuclear power.
2. That the anti-nuclear movement is just "reacting" to the ongoing disaster in Japan.
3. That "experts" know what they're talking about, and it requires a college course in nuclear engineering to understand and participate in the discussion.
As to 1., we use nuclear power in the United States for 20% of our electrical generation. The French use 75%. The Japanese used 29%.
https://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/nuclear-maps/
I suppose you could claim France is dependent on nuclear power. The whole debate about energy consumption, production, distribution, economies and prices, conservation and alternatives, is a highly complex one. I won't go into all of the details here. I can't too strongly recommend a thorough reading of the information on the Post Carbon Institutes's website, as a way to understand the issues involved and the perils we face as a species. "We" use nuclear generated electricity, the question of dependence, is a big one.
As for your claim 2., much of the debate around the efficacy and safety, the costs and dangers of nuclear power was held in this country in the late seventies and early eighties. Although the discussion goes back to the mid-forties. Everybody know about the "Atoms for Peace" program right? How the government decided to tout nuclear generated electricity, mostly to pay for the cost of nuclear weapons development, and to give the Atom a friendly comforting face, as opposed to the Hell Death visage it had after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those who tout the affordability of nuclear power, never seem to include the cost accounting for the nuclear arms race into that mix.
The reason the mass anti-nuclear movement has been in hiatus since the mid-eighties, with the exception of dedicated activists like Helen Caldicott, Michio Kaku, and the Nuclear Information and Resource Center is that we fought the industry and government to a stand still, no new power plants were built, the insurance costs mostly saw to that, and people have lives. They can't spend all of their time going to meetings, doing public education, lobbying, protesting, engaging in non-violent direct action that is a threat to life, limb, reputation, economic viability and good mental health.
We did all we could do against powerful corporate and governmental forces. Once the prospect of building new and "better" plants was off the collective agenda, people moved on. But that doesn't mean we forgot what we learned in educating ourselves about this technology. The disaster in Japan, aside from being a huge tragedy for the Japanese people, also shows that those of us who serve as "canaries in the coalmine" were right all along. And of course it brings us out of the woodwork to share what we know.
As to 3. see above. There are experts who are anti-nuclear. Many of them. They are not bought industry mouthpieces. There is plenty of information about how nuclear power plants work, what the history of accidents and dangers is, what the effects and distribution of nuclear isotopes are and how it works in an accident.
Any literate person who is willing to take the time, look at competing points of view, approaches the issues with an open mind, can find plenty of user friendly information. Information designed to explain the details in ways that are accessible to a non-"expert". Saying it's too complex, we've just got to trust the "experts" (whose? the governments? The industry's? the academy? [guess who pays for nuclear engineering research grants] the critics?) is a cop out.
When such dangerous stuff is being concentrated, generated and disseminated, when there's an "accident" in your community, when that stuff is in your food, water, air, soil and body, we're all EXPERTS. Or at least we better become ones, if we want to live without even greater increasing cancer rates, birth defects, immune disorders, habitat loss for species in the wild and food sources than we already have from this "safe" industry.
"A very expensive way to boil water." is a start to understanding. How about a toxic, lasting for near eternity (from a human scale it might as well be eternal), insidious, tasteless, invisible, soundless, smell-less, untouchable poison, that nobody who advocates its use, can guarantee 100% that it will not be accidentally spewn into our lives. As recent events, continuing to unfold, demonstrate with irrefutable certainty.
I mean, Jeez! What would it take for you people clinging to the hope of safe, clean, cheap nuclear power to give up your illusions? Does Godzilla have to rise from the sea and start blasting Tokyo? Do mutant zombie cannibal hordes have to show up in your neighborhood? Aside from the fact that so far those are fictional characters, if it ever did happen it would be TOO LATE!
How about untillable land all across Europe in a swath from Chernobyl to the north east all the way to Wales? How about large (and suppressed in the news and official reports) increases in birth defects and cancers in people living in that swath? How about the increased incidence of cancer and other consequences of the mutagenic effects of radioactive isotope exposure in communities around nuclear power plants. Stats that also are suppressed and kept out of the official record?
Until anyone has read up on this issue, from all sides of the argument, they need to withhold judgment, and let those of us who have done their research, take the floor. I'm perfectly willing and able to debate any informed advocate of nuclear power. What I find to be a waste of time, is arguing with those who do not know what they're talking about.
Professor Kaku, Dr. Caldicott, NIRC, Post Carbon Institute. I've linked their websites above. Read up!
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Thank you Miles for the well worded and well informed response to Lynn's post.
As I see it, there is absolutely no room in a discussion of nuclear energy for the word SAFE.
Nuclear energy is bigger and more powerful than anything we are capable of building or constructing with the resources (including natural resources, raw materials and human intelligence) we have available to contain it and keep it safe and sequestered.
We keep hearing from the media that the exposure we (the people in Japan and in the US) are currently receiving is of very low level and will not cause health problems. Let's not forget that it remains in the environment forever, dispersing throughout the whole earth, concentrating within the food chain. We all know that a small one time dose of low level radiation probably won't have any effect on our health. But what about the accumulation effect of multiple exposures?
There was an earlier post (from a person who I think is an accountant) asking what is background radiation and has it increased since the 1940's? A very good question that needs some serious looking into. Our media tries to lull us into a false sense that because there is naturally occurring background radiation ever present in our lives a little more won't hurt anybody. Yes there are naturally occurring radioisotopes in the environment that have probably been there since the formation of the earth and certainly since life has been present on earth. Again it's the increase due to man's activities and the accumulation of exposure that is the concern.
Marty
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Lynn, You make several claims/assumptions in your argument that are unfounded.....
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Lynn, You make several claims/assumptions in your argument that are unfounded.
1. That "we" are dependent on nuclear power.
2. That the anti-nuclear movement is just "reacting" to the ongoing disaster in Japan.
3. That "experts" know what they're talking about, and it requires a college course in nuclear engineering to understand and participate in the discussion.
-------------------
Miles....
1. Okay, but we are still dependent on some Nuke....All I know is we haven't shut down all of our plants yet...And so I'm assuming we are still dependent on at least some Nuke for our energy...
2. I'm not assuming the anti-nuclear movement is JUST 'reacting' to the ongoing disaster...But, I do assume the disaster in Japan might help the argument some, or probably a lot...
For the people/scientists who are still going to be for Nuke power though..(because safety measures and designs have improved so much, and could still improve more etc., etc)...I'm wondering how people are going to approach the argument against Nuke - or, maybe after this disaster, if it keeps getting worse like it is, people won't have to)...
I heard Caldicott speak, many yrs. ago...And I've listened to pro-Nuke people...I know a little bit about the debate...But, since we do possess the knowledge how to create Nuke energy...I'm not so sure it's a bad idea to actually improve on that knowledge...(Yes, I wish we had a world free of nuke waste, and weapons...But, we've already got it, and we are stuck with it)...And there are possibly even worse scenarios - like biological weapons...
3. Don't think anyone HAS to have a college course in nuclear engineering to be able to involve oneself in the Nuke discussion....
I was attempting to make a point, that it helps to have certain knowledge when one is attempting to keep up and/or is involved in a debate on the issue...Esp. if one's opinion is against Nuke energy, and you are trying to debate with those for Nuke energy...Esp. if they are a Nuke scientist...
My point about 'experts' are not that they are neccesarily right - far from it...but, the simple reality that we ARE often dependent on 'experts' in any given field who are in positions of innovation, and power, and help create policies...
'Joe average', with hardly any science background is not appointed to the Energy Commission to help put together an assesment of Nuke energy policy...
'Joe average' with hardly any science background is not working for Monsanto splicing up GMO crap...
We have certain stuff in the world because 'experts' do have particular knowledge, and know how to create certain things, and enough people go along with certain things...
For better or worse, 'they', the 'experts' unleash their innovations on 'us' whether many of 'us' want it or not...
It's just the plain reality of living in this world...
..."I mean, Jeez! What would it take for you people clinging to the hope of safe, clean, cheap nuclear power to give up your illusions? Does Godzilla have to rise from the sea and start blasting Tokyo? Do mutant zombie cannibal hordes have to show up in your neighborhood? Aside from the fact that so far those are fictional characters, if it ever did happen it would be TOO LATE"...
Personally, I've never clinged to any illusion of 'safe' Nuke energy...Life itself is not safe...And the word being attached to almost anything, is ridiculous...
"...Until anyone has read up on this issue, from all sides of the argument, they need to withhold judgment, and let those of us who have done their research, take the floor. I'm perfectly willing and able to debate any informed advocate of nuclear power. What I find to be a waste of time, is arguing with those who do not know what they're talking about."...
I don't know if you are including 'me' in that statement, or not...But, I agree...
I've never stated I think I know a lot about this issue...
I'm perfectly happy listening to the debates...And sometimes I have...
If I am ignorant about a situation, I don't think that means I can't write, or speak about what I am currently wondering, questioning, or pondering about any give situation...or, responding to other's posts.
I thought that was one way in which we are to learn at least a tiny bit more...
P.S...(Read a very detailed article yrs. ago about the practical/sociological dilema of what we are to do with all of our Nuclear Waste...It was an excellent, very detailed article on the subject - I think printed in the San Fran Chronicle Magazine...Have no idea now what the title or authors were...I saved it, but it has long disappeared...I think the article was written about 20yrs. ago - before, or after Chernobyl?...I'm not sure...If anyone recalls it, or research's and can find it online...I'd love to read it again... it would be a good thing to post)...
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
... I don't expect the media to do 'research' for me...
But, I have heard the basic pro's and con's regarding Nuclear energy....
I don't think the average Joe should be expected to know much about what is going on in the Nuclear energy field...
Or politicians that make the ultimate decisions on such matters? Just who has their ears? Who contributes campaign money, which is now unlimited, because the Supreme Court decision, “Citizens United?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
... How many people on these boards, have had a basic class in Nuclear physics?
That's a good question, but I would add to it. Where did they get their education? What was their work history prior to being on that board if they were “educated” in the field of “nuclear physics”?
What about being in the field of environmental science or health? Don't/shouldn't those matter more? Are there any conflicts of interest issues, financially speaking or politically speaking with any of those people on the so-called "boards"?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
... The reality is we are dependent on what certain 'experts' are doing in whatever fields...
Yes, but all (or at least most) people should be aware of the issues or at least have the information so that they can ferret-out the extremists, liars, scammers and the out-right rip-offs so they can at least have a reasonably educated idea of who they can trust to hand over their power to make decisions for us because that's how this political system supposedly functions at this point in time.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
... Most people (do I dare 'speak' for most people?) have their hands, and time full just trying to pay the bills these days.
Ah yes, the trickle-down theory working just as intended! When “they” don't want to have the “expense” of keeping “us” pacified it is designed to keep us busy, very busy, hard at work, very hard at work, working for their ever-increasing profit margins!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
... 'Correct knowledge' is going to be an interesting thing to try and get humankind to agree on...Most people think they have 'correct knowledge', that's why they think such and such, and sometimes end up killing each other over it...
That is unfortunately sometimes what happens when people blindly believe the so-called “experts” that the bought and paid for media propagandists relentlessly throw at them.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
... I'm not worried about getting 'burnt to a crisp', unless I get stuck in the middle of the desert in the summer with no shade...I'm more 'worried' about a horrible earthquake, famine, or dirty, undrinkable water...
That's completely understandable and should be respected; however, you can choose not to go to the desert in the summer in first place; you cannot 'choose' whether or not you are downwind from some nuclear fallout in the future and, don't forget about cancer.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
...The bottom line is we are dependent on Nuclear energy now, and will be for quite some time...
1- That's because we got into it in the first place.
2- Yes, if we continue allowing ourselves to be "forced" into continuing it presently and also in the future.
3- No we don't have to be “dependent” on nuclear energy as long as the pro-nuclear entities or the energy crisis fear mongers say we do.
They would just assume have “us” dependent on nuclear energy for ever and ever. We should be extremely suspicious and skeptical towards those entities.
4- By telling us the only choice we have is between nuclear and coal; I believe that they have been and probably are basically criminally negligent as far as I can tell; not to mention scientifically negligent.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
... We are not going to switch overnight to alternatives...
That’s why I think that if anybody gets a financial boost from the government in the energy production field it should not be the coal companies, oil companies or the nuclear energy companies either. It instead should be toward conservation, actual “green” alternatives, and renewable/reusable closed-loop (as possible), and more ecologically sustainable systems in general not just power production.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
......So, because of that, I think it's important for people to get vocal, and active and put pressure on our Reps. and others, to demand regulations, and enforcement of regulations of the Nuke plants we have now, and in the near future...We are suppose to have them, so we could try and make sure we have the best we can get...
I agree with that in principle, but unfortunately with nuclear energy "the best that we can get" is nowhere near good enough.
For one thing I think there are too many sidetracking issues for "regulations" to work and function like the "average Joe" expects them to; ultimately, one way or the other, politics will invariably, screw-it-up (actually it will never be correct in the first place) and render the so-called "regulatory process" dysfunctional and unworkable because politics does what politics does.
What we really need is social and economic justice for any of those things to even have the possibility of working, because those things (government "regulations" on big business that support a strategic placement of individual politicians' campaigns) just maintains the smokescreen for the continuation of destroying (if “need be”) many for the benefit of few to continue "business as usual".
IMHO; All nuclear power plants should be decommissioned safely as possible and as soon as possible in incremental steps as other energy sources are utilized or as they become too old or otherwise deemed “extremely/urgently” unsafe in which case they should be decommissioned immediately and begin the process of powering down immediately regardless of the availability of other sources in the area.
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Lynn,
Thank you for your comprehensive response. Two points:
Just because we have nukes and nuclear waste, doesn't mean we should continue creating more, with the continued operation of existing plants, nor does it mean we should expand the industry, no matter how "safe" the new technologies are purported to be. We're supposedly capable of learning from our mistakes.
I assert that in this case, it's time, long past time, to get a clue.
By the way, you conflate nuclear power plants, for electricity generation, with nuclear weapons, i.e. warheads, bombs, with your remark about biological weapons. While there is an intimate connection and historical relationship between nuclear power and weapons [It's why among many other reasons our anti-nuclear movement always emphasized both] they are also separate phenomena.
Secondly, there are different degrees of "safe". Some things that aren't safe, if they fail, a lot of people, plants and animals die. Other things, like nuclear power plants which we all may accept are not safe, when they fail, maybe not so many people, and other living things, die immediately, but the long term effects are of the kind I summarized in my previous post.
It's a matter of degree, intensity and long term effects, the distinction between and among them seem to always get glossed over in this discussion by the proponents of nuclear power.
Your point about not having to be an expert, to have the right and ability to comment on an issue, is well taken.
That said, you are making a sideways argument in support of nuclear power plants and for the building of future ones.
On that point, I truly, sincerely believe you are wrong and severely misguided. Along with everyone else, expert or not, who keeps emphasizing our dependency on them, their lack of CO2 emissions (a crock if the petroleum required to build, maintain, and transport the waste from nuclear power plants is included, numbers always left out of the equation by the pro-nuke camp) and the safety of new designs.
I'm not going to repeat the all too used quote about the definition of insanity, by now we all know it by heart.
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
:waccosun:Here are a couple of links to listen to “experts”.
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
This thread seems to revolve around the future. I am not a nuclear physicist, nor a nuclear activist. I have been surprised as some well known environmentally sensitive voices came out in favor of nuclear power generation as Global Climate change, anthropogenic or not, entered to the foreground of popular discussion. (Think Stewart Brand ... and other technophiles.) But what about the present moment. My understanding of radioactivity suggests the present conditions are a black and white argument against further development of nuclear power. And history supports the idea that we cannot control nuclear materials.
It appears to be the case that in the current accident in Japan, there has been much inaccurate, inconsistent, and unreliable reporting of the release of radioactivity. It may have been intentional, to avoid panic - since there is nothing that can be done about radiation released into the environment and no way for an ordinary citizen to know if it is there. To report significant quantities entering the environment would be frightening. No place to hide.
A scientific background isn't necessary to note that pregnant women are advised to avoid airplane flights, dental x-rays, and other choice based exposures to radiation, background or diagnostic. Why? Because a) a fetus is particularly susceptible to the cellular damage that radioactivity causes; b) exposure to radiation is cumulative - e.g., over a lifetime! That is why scientific studies of the effects of the Chernobyl accident suggest it accounted for over 1 million early deaths (from cancer) in the last 24 years. So more radiation in the world is a danger to human life and other species as well.
Isotopes produced by nuclear reactors have different half lives. That is - different rates of decay - the process by which they create the invisible, tasteless, odorless, "rays" that cause damage to living cells. A half life is the time it takes for an isotope to reduce its output of radiation by half. To understand this, think about how long it would take an ice cube, sitting on your kitchen counter to shrink by half its size. That is the "half life" of an ice cube. It will probably be gone in six hours, if your house is comfortable to sit and read in. The radioactive iodine released in Japan has a half life of less than a month. It will still be radioactive, but only producing half as much radiation. The cesium has a longer half life. But plutonium persists for THOUSANDS of years. And it is the most radioactive – even microscopic particles are extremely dangerous and can be inhaled, absorbed by food plants, enter water, etc. Giving off radiation for thousands of years. Plutonium has been found outside the reactor in Japan.
Any radiation introduced into the biosphere that we share (winds carry radioactive dust just as reliably as they carry soot from Chinese coal plants) results in health effects. Maybe not measurable tomorrow - but over weeks, months, years, centuries, and millenia. Depending upon how much of which isotope is released into the environment. And where it migrates to.
Spent fuel, stored (illogically) in water above the reactor vessels can heat up and burn if uncovered. In Fukushima this has resulted in radioactive materials being released into the environment. Why there was much effort focused on dumping water into the pools containing those materials. It is still not very clear what part of the plant was the source of the radioactive releases in Fukushima.
For me, this accident just reminds me that the genie is out of the bottle and we will all suffer its wrath (effects). Even though we don't feel it. Or know it. Or measure it. There isn't anything to do about radioactivity introduced by human activity - from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukishima, or all the atmospheric testing in the past. That is the legacy of past choices. It is not reversible.
But in the present, we can refuse to make more genies. Because the way they affect life when they escape the bottle is uncontrollable. We can learn to live without reading in the dark!
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
I don't know if this point has been made here yet or not. I haven't read all the messages posted (perhaps you can understand :wink:).
As one who has studied and worked with energy systems for many years, it seems evident to me that nuclear power - along with all other forms of centralized electrical energy generation - is part and parcel of an old-paradigm, inherently wasteful economic system. The design function of this system is evidently to generate substantial amounts of income for thousands of investors and enormous income and economic (which seems to include political) power for the few in the highest positions. This is as opposed to a system designed to meet human needs in the most efficient and sustainable ways. Why? Because the latter design function does not lead to high profits for the few, which depends on centralized control of the resources.
Inefficiency and waste in the dominant system is profitable, as is glaringly evident in the transportation sector. Anyone who's seen the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" should be well aware of this.
Transmitting power long distances, as centralized generation requires, is inherently inefficient. Energy is wasted due to the unavoidable losses in transmission lines. In a system designed to meet human needs efficiently, it would also be quite unnecessary. For example, all the electrical energy used in Sonoma County could almost certainly be produced within the county using renewable resources: solar (photovoltaics and solar-thermal), wind, biomass, geothermal and even wave energy (though it's probably not needed). The argument that centralized, large-scale generating plants are more efficient does not apply to renewable resources. Once generation equipment is in the 100 Kilowatt to 1 Megawatt range, which is quite appropriate for regional use, larger scale (e.g., 1 Gigawatt) does not increase efficiency. Putting such equipment as solar-thermal or clean biomass burners near the point of use also enables the heat that is otherwise wasted to be utilized. And there are acres of rooftops in residential and commercial areas that could be covered with enough solar panels to provide all needed energy (both electrical and heat) during most of the year.
So when someone says our only options are more nuclear or more coal, they really mean those are the only options they're interested in, because they're the only ones that guarantee them continued high profits. When they say the system is working, they mean it's working well for them. Don't ask them to consider how it's working for those who live downwind of the nuclear and coal plants or anywhere near the coal or uranium mines (or those who can't afford escalating energy bills).
I end with a favorite quote:
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change
something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
- Buckminster Fuller
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Worth a few moments of distraction:
https://www.butiamletired.com/
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
I don't know if this point has been made here yet or not. I haven't read all the messages posted (perhaps you can understand :wink:).
As one who has studied and worked with energy systems for many years, it seems evident to me that nuclear power - along with all other forms of centralized electrical energy generation - is part and parcel of an old-paradigm, inherently wasteful economic system. The design function of this system is evidently to generate substantial amounts of income for thousands of investors and enormous income and economic (which seems to include political) power for the few in the highest positions. This is as opposed to a system designed to meet human needs in the most efficient and sustainable ways. Why? Because the latter design function does not lead to high profits for the few, which depends on centralized control of the resources.
Inefficiency and waste in the dominant system is profitable, as is glaringly evident in the transportation sector. Anyone who's seen the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" should be well aware of this.
Transmitting power long distances, as centralized generation requires, is inherently inefficient. Energy is wasted due to the unavoidable losses in transmission lines. In a system designed to meet human needs efficiently, it would also be quite unnecessary. For example, all the electrical energy used in Sonoma County could almost certainly be produced within the county using renewable resources: solar (photovoltaics and solar-thermal), wind, biomass, geothermal and even wave energy (though it's probably not needed). The argument that centralized, large-scale generating plants are more efficient does not apply to renewable resources. Once generation equipment is in the 100 Kilowatt to 1 Megawatt range, which is quite appropriate for regional use, larger scale (e.g., 1 Gigawatt) does not increase efficiency. Putting such equipment as solar-thermal or clean biomass burners near the point of use also enables the heat that is otherwise wasted to be utilized. And there are acres of rooftops in residential and commercial areas that could be covered with enough solar panels to provide all needed energy (both electrical and heat) during most of the year.
So when someone says our only options are more nuclear or more coal, they really mean those are the only options they're interested in, because they're the only ones that guarantee them continued high profits. When they say the system is working, they mean it's working well for them. Don't ask them to consider how it's working for those who live downwind of the nuclear and coal plants or anywhere near the coal or uranium mines (or those who can't afford escalating energy bills).
I end with a favorite quote:
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change
something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
- Buckminster Fuller
I think you have said it in a nutshell. It's all about profits for the large companies. No regard for safety or health. Lets create our own local energy systems run by the people. Great quote by Buckminster I will try to remember it!
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
The local Nuclear Scientist guy talks with listeners about some of their questions about Nuclear...
I'd like to know how some people on here would respond to some of his criticisms regarding the 'eco-wacko' crowd...And the improvements that have and can be made in Nuclear energy systems...(the waste being 'burned up' and used etc.)
Some of the basics are during the last hr...April 2nd, 12am-1am. time...
(In the earlier hrs. he talks a bit about some of the improvements in the Nuclear energy field)...
Link to archives of show here....
https://vaca.bayradio.com/kgo_archives/
Miles..."That said, you are making a sideways argument in support of nuclear power plants and for the building of future ones."...
Well, I don't know how one comes to it being 'sideways'...I've just been hearing both 'sides' of the debate again...(maybe a pov. seems sideways when another person sees it differently, and is on the other 'side'...:): )...And I don't know what we 'should', or 'shouldn't' do...
France seems to be doing okay so far...And China is eating our lunch because they are progressing scientifically, (among other things) nuclear included...And so many people in the U.S. now seem to be lazier then hell, and freaked out about almost anything...
It does make me wonder...Once we discovered fire, and fell in love with all that we could do with it...There's no turning back...There's only improving on the knowledge of whatever realities we discover about our physical universe...
We are human - so at least attempting to improve....
About the 'future' thingy...We have the knowledge of Nuclear physics...We can leave it up to other countries to keep improving on this system of knowledge...Or, we can include ourselves in it also...
Re: Nuclear Power Madness
Hello Lynn,
We now have on our earth copious quantities of high level nuclear waste from nuclear power plants not only in the United States, but world wide.
In the US we have thousands of tons of spent fuel material, millions of gallons of radioactive waste, millions of cubic yards of contaminated soil, debris and contaminated water stored. There are over one hundred sites in the US comprising thousands of acres of land that is designated as contaminated and unusable. Different sources state different numbers and quantities, but even conservative numbers are very large.
Currently nuclear waste is accumulating world wide by over 10,000 metric tonnes each year. One plant produces about 25 metric tonnes per year. And again you will find different numbers from different sources.
The US Department of Energy does have a goal of cleaning this up.
On paper, calculations can describe the possibility (probability, plausibility) of reprocessing, stabilizing and rendering harmless and reusable high level radioactive nuclear waste. And in the lab, a small scale and almost completely controlled environment, it has been shown to be possible.
Now translate that to the industrial scale world wide. Calculate the cost. The safe handling and transporting of large quantities of highly dangerous radioactive material being used, reprocessed and stabilized and reused.
India, France, England and Russia are doing reprocessing on a limited basis. And India is also reprocessing the waste to a more stable condition which is currently considered to be a very dangerous and hazardous operation.
As Miles pointed out, we are currently using nuclear power for about 20% of our total needs. The US Department of Energy allots about 11% of it's budget to developing solar, wind and other clean energy technologies. The balance going to the development of oil, natural gas, and nuclear sources. (This is our tax money)
I think the question is not, can we make nuclear power usable for our current use, but what do we want for the future of our planet?
Who are the workers going to be?
Do we want our grandchildren working in these hazardous radioactive power plants and reprocessing clean-up plants?
Do we want to be shipping our nuclear waste to India as we presently do with our electronic waste?
Lynn, I challenge you to look at your own work life. How many mistakes do you yourself make per year in your work? How many of these mistakes do you yourself find and correct before they become a problem, or someone else finds them? You need to count all of them, even the little ones. (I know this for myself because I worked in a situation where I had to know.) The first point is, humans make mistakes, no matter how many checks and safe guards exist to prevent them. The second point is, machines also make mistakes. They can get out of alignment, they can allocate a larger or smaller quantity of material to a mix, etc. What does making nuclear power and waste reprocessing safe mean? How much safer? How safe is safe is safe enough? Who decides this? Who regulates?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
The local Nuclear Scientist guy talks with listeners about some of their questions....
